Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Are we too clean?

A baby cannot resist stuffing anything within reach into her mouths, often to the chagrin of her paranoid parents.

Biologists are studying why a baby's instinctive behavior -- specifically, stuffing dirt into her mouth -- would be in fact beneficial. They propose a 'hygiene hypothesis," eating dirt and the billions of microbes and, yes, worms inside that dirt may sicken the child (and parent) in the short term, but will reduce the chance of developing immune-related illnesses in the long run.

According to immunologist Mary Ruebush, children raised in a hyper-clean environment are not exposed to the organisms that help them develop appropriate immune circuits. Research suggests that the increase in immune system disorders (e.g., asthma, allergies, multiple sclerosis, Type I diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease) in the US may be due to our restrictions on the environment and behavior of our children.

Dr. David Elliott of the University of Iowa cites specific evidence in developing countries; for example, he claims that the eradication of worms in some villages in Gambia have led to an increase in children's skin allergies.

Obviously, dirtiness is not a desirable outcome. But too much cleanliness is harmful, too. Professor Ruebrush suggests that we rue antibiotic products and stick with plain soap and water whenever our hands need washing. Dr. Joel Weinstock of Tufts Medical Center goes even further: “Children should be allowed to go barefoot in the dirt, play in the dirt, and not have to wash their hands when they come in to eat." He also suggests that kids have two dogs and a cat, which will expose them to intestinal worms that can promote a healthy immune system.

Read the NYT article here.

9/17/09 Update:
A man infects himself with hookworm to cure his asthma and hayfever. Listen to his account on Radiolab (his story begins at ~32 minute mark in the show).


This cute little bloodsucker can cure your asthma.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Duelity

At duelity.net, the Vancouver Film School presents a pair of beautiful animations that illustrate two opposing theories of the origins of life, evolution and creationism.

View the videos here.

I want to stress that the theory of evolution is a scientific one, supported by evidence gathered from the natural world. Creationism is a religious doctrine; it is substantiated not by scientific data but by Christian belief.

The conflict between science and religion, I think, arises when one discipline infringes upon the boundaries of the other. Science -- because of its inability to gather data beyond the natural world -- should not make any claims about the existence or non-existence of God. Religion -- because of its inability to discredit scientific theories based on rigorous data -- should not make any claims about the validity of the theory of evolution.

Science can not tell you that you do not have a soul, or that God does not exist. Likewise, religion can not tell you that the world is flat or that humans did not share a common ancestor with other primates. To avoid conflict, keep the areas of expertise between the two disciplines distinct. For I believe there should be room for both science and religion in a moral, rational, and free-thinking human being.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Life: A Journey Through Time by Frans Lanting


Using contemporary photographs taken from different points around the world, photographer Frans Lanting has created a visual timeline of the evolution of life on Earth. The sequence of breathtaking photos trace the history of life, from its fiery beginnings through its evolution in sea, land, and air. I was captivated by many of the photographs, and the accompanying music by Philip Glass only intensifies the experience. If you have 10+ minutes of free time, check out Life: A Journey Through Time.

Thursday, February 1, 2007

Why do we find certain things cute?


Evolution, stupid.

Natalie Angier wrote a great article in the New York Times explaining why we humans are so darn susceptible to cuteness.

"Scientists who study the evolution of visual signaling have identified a wide and still expanding assortment of features and behaviors that make something look cute: bright forward-facing eyes set low on a big round face, a pair of big round ears, floppy limbs and a side-to-side, teeter-totter gait, among many others.

Cute cues are those that indicate extreme youth, vulnerability, harmlessness and need, scientists say, and attending to them closely makes good Darwinian sense. As a species whose youngest members are so pathetically helpless they can't lift their heads to suckle without adult supervision, human beings must be wired to respond quickly and gamely to any and all signs of infantile desire.

The human cuteness detector is set at such a low bar, researchers said, that it sweeps in and deems cute practically anything remotely resembling a human baby or a part thereof, and so ends up including the young of virtually every mammalian species, fuzzy-headed birds like Japanese cranes, woolly bear caterpillars, a bobbing balloon, a big round rock stacked on a smaller rock, a colon, a hyphen and a close parenthesis typed in succession." :-)

Hmmm...I guess this explains why I find just about every baby mammal irresistably cute. I wonder if people who find things cute are more likely to have children than people who don't? And I wonder if people's attitudes change about cuteness change after they've had children? Science Fair project, anyone?

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

More evidence of evolution -- bubble-sniffing noses



When star-nosed moles are exploring, they release a stream of bubbles and suck them back into their noses. Why? Dr. Kenneth Catania believed that these mammals were making air bubbles to sniff the water -- odors could cross from the water and into the air bubble. To test his hypothesis, Dr. Catania made two paths, one leading to food. When the moles used air bubbles, they chose the path leading to food 85% of the time. When the moles couldn't use air bubbles, they chose the correct path only 50% of the time.

So what's this got to do with evolution? These noses are an example of how evolution works -- instead of reinventing a nose that could sniff odors in water, the star-nosed mole adapted its terrestrial nose to function in water. Certainly not perfect, but far better than not being able to smell in water at all.

Read the article by Carl Zimmer in the New York Times. The photo above is copyrighted by Dr. Catania